Starcraft-IX

I've been a subscriber since issue #3 and love the magazine. However, being a subscriber to magazines like Car & Driver and Motor Trend who tell it how it is, RC Driver is consistently over optimistic in their assessments. I understand that you are driven by add dollars and as a start up, you can't afford to piss off any advertisers, but I don't remember ever reading a review where you came out and said this is a piece of junk.

The ratings that you give the cars and their individual components is a good start, but again, I don't ever remember reading anything lower than a 7 being given to anything. I am sure that some of the vehicles you have tested have been garbage (the nitro Spyder comes to mind) but still no straight shooting on the overall conclusion. Have you ever considered forceing a bell curve in a comparison to other vehicles in the class? That would mean that we would have to see some 1s and 2s in there as well as a few 10s (way over used at this point in the mag)

This would be a great way to compare vehicles. For example, the Kyosho MP 777 SE would get some 10s, whereas the Ofna Ultra might get some 2s or 3s as a comparison. Your article could then just point out that you get what you pay for. Is the Ultra garbage, no, but does it really compare to a full race bred machine, no way - so why give both of them 10s? (I'm not aware of an article on the Ultra, but we've seen RTRs and full race kits get the same ratings)

I know that your thought is that as a RTR, the Ultra may be a 10 and it isn't fair to compare, and so maybe you have a couple of categories. (race bred 1/8 buggies; RTR buggies, etc) Each article could then point out where the other vehicles in the class rank against this one. I know that the arguement is that you would just be getting the writers opinions - well, YES! Of course we are getting your opinion - that is what we are paying for. No way will everyone agree, but this kind of straight shooting will keep people coming back for more to see what the "crazy people" at RC Driver have come up with now.

Greg V

Thanks for the constructive criticism and pointing out some examples, lots of times readers go off the handle about subjects and don't back it up.

You've pointed out an area that we probably do need to clarify better near the ratings, the intended user, which is currently located in the Fast Facts section. Each vehicle in the magazine is reviewed and rated for what we think the intended user of the vehicle is. So for a vehicle such as the 777SP1 it would score high marks as its reviewed in the experienced/ racer segment. The Ultra too gets high marks because, for the intended buyer, the backyard basher, it’s a good vehicle. We have had some low marks and yes have even ticked off a few manufacturers with the marks. I know because I'm the one that spends the time on the phone backing up our views to them. If we break parts, we tell you we break parts, look at my K2 review, I broke a steering knuckle, look at Dave C's Losi XXX-NT review; broken arms. Does this mean we should give the suspension ratings for these cars a 2? No, considering the suspension geometry is well designed, or components are well molded among other factors. Ratings are carefully thought out with many considerations and picking that final number is truly not easy at all, just know we take a lot of time to do it. Hope this clears things up a little and we'll work on tightening up that area.

Thanks again for the post, comments by forum or email really help us tweak your magazine!

Starcraft-IX

Thanks for the response Greg - the fact that you took the time to write a well thought out response is one of the reasons I just extended my subscription another 2 years.

Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Still, wouldn't it be fun to have an article that threw down the gauntlet and forced a bell curve on different cars in the different categories? Then if you really wanted to make sure that you alienated 100% of your advertisers, you could try and do a second set of ratings that are price adjusted (the MP777SP1's worst nightmare!)

That said, to really be statistically significant you would have to have 30 or so of each car and run them all by the same person while at the same time comparing them to 30 of every other model - not really within the realms of reality.

So with that - keep up the good work on the mag, and thanks again for responding

evaderguy89

HUH!?!?!?!?! Is this really the almighty Greg V? Can i have your autograph?

beetlebz

you can have my autograph! its on a 8x10 glossy and runs $15.99 wherever fine radio controlled automobiles and accessories are sold

seriously though, hats off to you both. after spending so much time in the forums, it put a genuine smile on my face to see two human beings being (dare i say it) civil! but back to the point, you both have very valid arguments, and stated them very well. However, being the type who cant rest at night knowing i haven't tossed in my two cents.... would it be a bad idea to make sort of a two part rating? not only give the vehicle a score, but also have a set of separate and well defined markets into which the vehicle was intended. for example (and a shoddy one at that) have say, a basher category, a racer category, or both. The review for the new factory team RC10T7 would receive a a given score, as a racing vehicle. Or the new losi XXXXT RTR a similar score, as a vehicle suited to both. Im sure for a large portion of readers such a thing would be unnecessary, however for such a small thing to add, it would make a world of difference to other readers. Sure vehicle A got 10's across the board, however were it to be scored as a racing vehicle, it would have received 5's and 6's across the board.

so there, my .02

Guidoracer

Sorry, but I couldn't help chiming in here. While, for the most part, we take the same point of view over here at RCCA that Greg and the crew at Driver do (rating each kit for the target market), we break up our performance testing and ratings into "Round 1" and "Round 2". I don't know if it's ever been explictly explain in print, but Round 1 is for the "out-of-the-box" setup. We first run the cars hard OOB and rate them as they perform at whatever track or tracks we use to test, which isn't always that great. Because an OOB setup is usually a compromise (at best) for any given track, we then do a Round 2 test where we really play with the setup, upgrade parts or equipment (only to get the best performance -- not just to trick it out for the heck of it) and report on it again with the results for the car as set up for a specific track. I can't speak for all the Ed.s that do this as their full-time job, but I put a lot of time into a track test over a few weekends to really get a feel for the car -- especially the high-line cars like the "pro" versions and "team editions". Fortunately for me, I'm on the West Coast where weather is cooperative all but a few weeks out of the year. And all of this Round 1/Round 2 is in the same article, so we don't usually do a follow-up report in a later issue; you get it all in one package.

Greg and Bob, please don't consider this a "hijack" or taking advantage of your thread for free promotion. You guys do a great job over there at Driver, and I respect your work very much. For those who don't know me, I've been writing for RCCA and RC Nitro (sadly gone) for about four years and was previously with R/C CAR from 1998 until the time I joined Air Age. I just want to give the community an additional bit of insight into the publishing game from our point of view.

Thanks for the time, guys!

Lito Reyes
Editor-at-large
Radio Control Car Action

Spdsk8er

My Feedback: (3)

rc car action for live! tell it like it is!

gotwood

I think RC driver is good at ratings better then the others! But you guys have to many gas Cars & Truck features that just my opinion .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stay in school!!!!! skidsk8er

I AM SOFA KING WE TODD DID ?????????

WhAtIsMoUsE

I am incredibly sorry to bump this terribly old thread but i had to throw in my opinion for what its worth.

i think the ratings should be removed altogether. rc cars and the people who use them are too complex and diverse to ever be fairly evaluated by numbers.

by giving ratings, you are already assuming that readers know to base these numbers on their target audience. this is in actuality an easy way for you to excuse and abuse inflated ratings. often times a bad car or truck will narrow its own target audience by being bad. however, since there is still a slim market for the car/truck, you can quite easily give high ratings to this vehicle because a few people would like it.

this is almost like taking a pool of potential owners, and selectively choosing the ones most likely to buy to give your average rating for. if 10 people in 1000 would love to have car x, you can take the average of those 10 and find a rating of 8.0/10. if 150 people want car y and you take the average you may dish ut the same 8.0/10. but in reality, its quite likely car x is much worse simply because it narrowed its own target audience by being a bad vehicle in the first place.

heres maybe a better example:

before the mini-t came out, lets say the mini-x was released by company-a. now lets also say this mini totally sucked compared to the mini-t. so instead of 100 people out of 1000 people wanting it, only 10 are intrigued. but those 10 are just as intrigued as those 100 are, theres just 10 times as few of them. the 10 are intrigued because its a cool little project car, its low in price, and it can chase the cat around. those 10 do not mind the car actually sucking. so in your mag, you give out a rating of 8.0 to this awful car because 10 people like it somewhat. how do you get away with this?! its a terrible, terrible, car, and here you are giving an excellent rating to it. this is because, however small, it still has a market, and because you are dishing out ratings based on the target audience, you can inflate these ratings quite easily.

the point of this is not to bash the magazine or any other. i understand quite a bit about ad revenue and balancing everyones complaints. this is why i suggest the removal of ratings altogether. this can accomplish many things. text is so dynamic, you can fill your articles with as much meaningless jargon as you want and keep everyone happy. you can tell outright who the target demographic for this product is, and then you can give your opinion on its performance. readers will be happy because theyll never feel like theyve been swankered, and they can form their own opinions on wether they fit into the demographic. numbers give the impression that the number is the end-all rating for everyone: so bob sees an 8.0 for the horrible mini-x and buys it, only to find out he is definitely not part of the demographic since he wanted something much more raceable out of the box. without ratings, you can explain how the product fits or doesnt fit in with every demographic, and throw in a washy conclusion so that the companies cant decide that you are trying to bash their car, rather recommending what audience it is for and leaving it up to the reader to decide on their own what the rating for themselves would be.

wow. sorry for the incredibly long post. im not going to bother with a conclusion since i hope you get the point that removing the numbers would benefit everyone.

iliveonnitro

And back to bringing up an old thread.

There are some flaws in your response.


The problem is that the vast majority of readers WANT numbers stating how well the car performed, how it ranks, and if it is worth buying based on the numbers. No matter how inaccurate they can be, an RC magazine that has a rating system that seems reliable and accurate will almost always outsell a magazine that does away with ratings.


Or, the car was in a niche in that not many people partake. How many 1/8" oval car drivers do you know? How many non-racing oval car drivers do you know? How many drag racing bashers do you know? The car may be well enjoyed, but it was targeted to a smaller audience in the first place. Maybe 1/6 scale gasoline drivers really give their car an 8, how would you compare that with a 1/10 on-road race car? The audience may be smaller, but not because it is a "bad" vehicle in the first place.


Again, the problem is that people WANT numbers to be an end-all rating. How many times have you glanced at a review of a car you are definately not interested in and, instead of reading the whole article, jumped straight to the numbers to get some justification if it really is as bad as you think it is? I guarantee that you wouldn't read an article of a lousy-looking car if it was rated an 8 because it confirms your suspicion; however, if that same car rated at a 4/5 or 10 would instantly catch your attention and curiousity, making you want to read the article for the "dirt" on why it was lousy, or what could have possibly made it so good.

Ratings will always be here to stay - when it comes down to it, they help sell magazines and keep subsribers.

-Inverted-

You have to think of it the logical way. I think the reason people think they are overly positive on the ratings is because theres no bad rated vehicles in the magazine. You have to think they probably only put in vehicles that are good, because for the majority of the readers, they don't want to hear about bad vehicles. Also take into consideration these guys have deadlines, they dont get to run the vehicle a whole lot, or run it for a few months before they do the report, so their ratings are based on the time they used it.

bobcat7811

I think that the ratings are as good as they can be. Let's be honest here. Do the vehicles actually stink or is it the driver. I have raced vehicles that would be considered bashers and won. I have also raced my decked out race vehicle and lost to one that was considered a basher.

We can throw all our money at upgrades but in the end if you cant keep it in the race line and off the boards you aren't going to win. We would probably be better off buying more fuel or batteries and running more often than worrying about the next fancy upgrade or the newest vehicle on the block.

Which brings us to the 2nd point. I have never seen an arm or steering knuckle break while driving in a straight line. Every time I have broken one of these part I hit something.......driver error. Only parts I have experienced breakage due to normal running were clutch bell bearings due to heat. Something I hope AE has gotten fixed on the new GT2. That type of issue would not be caught by a magazine that is rating a vehicle. It would be addressed by someone that has the actual vehicle. That being said how many people buy vehicles by what they read in a magazine. I would hope they would do a little more research with vehicle owners first using the magazine articles/ratings to determine their interest and not their final decision.

In the end a bad day running RC is better than a good day at work/school/ or whatever you do when you are not running RC.

j-boy

Some folks have waaaay to much time on their hands.........RC DRIVER FOR LIFE [:-][:-][:-]

noximus

there were some things i would have like to bring up in the past when i use to read RC Driver, problems i had reading most of the articles, i had to search for any downfalls to anything.

Like for instance in the Sept issue, they did an article on the OFNA Mutilator, reason why everybody goes right to the ratings is because the layout is too busy. like for instance you have different sections for Chassis, drivetrain, steering, body and wheels, engine and electronics, assembly. you can probably try and sum up all the categories into 3.

i did however like the fact on how they mentioned the tie-rod screws and a couple of other items the buyer will need to pay close attention to.

buyers only care about a couple of things, can it win, will it be competitive, how durable and cost, ups and downs and the ratings. at least thats all i want to know lol all the other things, like if it pushes into a certain setup or corner on the track, how to clear certain sections and so on, its good reading, but probably could be more brief, as i would want to know more of the actual kit or product instead.

its a nice magazine, but its too busy for my taste.

infernos777

I like the magazine, but I'm also not a fan of everything in the magazine somehow getting no less than an 8 score out of 10. The editors I hope can't possibly expect us to believe that everything is that good, even "to the intended buyer." Greg that makes sense but at some point isn't a car or servo or radio really a 3 out of 10? If it is, why not say so?

I read about ad dollars and magazines all over the RC sites, so I know how that works. I can't blame you for needing to kiss some butt now and then.

I like RC Car magazine because they don't use number reviews and they're more honest about likes and dislikes. The editors race at our local track and tell it like it is, which is why I read their magazine. I also read Driver and subscribe to both, so don't get to upset Greg! But seriously, you know we're not that gullible right? If you come to RCX I'll explain it in person!

infernos777

Guess I don't get an answer [&:] Was I too accurate?

Greg V

Geez, give me a few days to reply, I've been busy.

Driven by ad dollars is the standard assumption of most internet rangers. Let me give you an example of this not being the case. Sportwerks Chaos distributed by Horizon Hobbies. Horizon is one of our biggest advertisers. In this article you'll find low ratings, like 4's. As I flip through our magazines, there's 4's, 5's, 6's... Ratings aren't always 8-10, some of you may want to look a little closer.

Telling it like it is... our local track/ hobby shop generally sells out of our magazine while the others site and collect dust. When asked why, the owner responded with "You guys tell it like it is" even though one of our competitors uses the track for their test drives. I guess the answer is, we need more editors in each state to show people we tell it like it is too.

777- I won't be at RCX, but I'd be more than happy to speak with you at the Pro Series Finals, I'll be racing in the Expert Buggy and Truggy classes as well as covering the event.